I propose that (link pid) be used to indicate that *current-process* be notified when process pid terminates. I imagine that this is the more common case. A process needs to know about an event, so it requests notification.
The other direction (reverse-link pid) would mean that *current-process* should send notification to process pid when *current-process* terminates.
In this case I would make the API (link :to pid) (link :from pid) (link :to-from pid)
I like the idea, but it is not clear to me which direction :from and :to refer to. Which one matches my "link" and which matches "reverse-link"? Which one says "please notify me when you terminate"? Which one says "I will notify you when I terminate"?
Although I like your thinking, I want to reserve the right to change the Erlisp API (even drastically) without regard to backwards compatibility, at /least/ until a 0.1 release. ;)
Consider the right reserved :-) So early in development, flexibility is more important than backwards compatibility.
Eric